Criminal Government: You Will Not Hire Based On Ability

The criminal federal government has slipped a section in to the unconstitutional financial regulations bill that mandates employers not hire based on a persons ability, but based on a persons sex and race.

Politico reports:

A little-noticed section of the Wall Street reform law grants the federal government broad new powers to compel financial firms to hire more women and minorities — an effort at promoting diversity that’s drawing fire from Republicans who say it could lead to de facto hiring quotas.

Deep inside the massive overhaul bill, Congress gives the federal government authority to terminate contracts with any financial firm that fails to ensure the “fair inclusion” of women and minorities, forcing every kind of company from a Wall Street giant to a mom-and-pop law office to account for the composition of its work force.

If you don’t hire based on race, you must be a racist.

BUT THAT'S NOT ALL

The criminal unconstitutional legislation also blocks the SEC from all freedom of information act requests.

Fox reports:

Under a little-noticed provision of the recently passed financial-reform legislation, the Securities and Exchange Commission no longer has to comply with virtually all requests for information releases from the public, including those filed under the Freedom of Information Act.

The law exempts the SEC from disclosing records or information derived from "surveillance, risk assessments, or other regulatory and oversight activities." Given that the SEC is a regulatory body, the provision covers almost every action by the agency, lawyers say. Congress and federal agencies can request information, but the public cannot.

That argument comes despite the President saying that one of the cornerstones of the sweeping new legislation was more transparent financial markets. Indeed, in touting the new law, Obama specifically said it would "increase transparency in financial dealings."

[edit on 28-7-2010 by mnemeth1]

Reminds me of when I worked at my old job processing insurance. Out of all employees, about 98% were women. About some 60% were non-white. My work area was having a discussion about work policies and my supervisor was going over the hiring procedures. She says "Whenever possible we will enact affirmative action and hire minorities first-"

I cut her off and turned to the group of women and said "Ya but at what point does it stop???!!!"

[edit on 7/28/2010 by The Endtime Warrior]

you know this could turn out to be a good thing.

the federal government shouldn't be having business contracts with financial firms anyways.

hopefully none of the financial firms change their hiring practice and the criminal government fires all of them.

reply to post by mnemeth1


Interesting.

This concept has already been challenged in the Supreme Court, and the challenges have been affirmed. In the private sector, that is. I suspect that if anyone can prove hiring practice discrimination based on this idea, it would be solid grounds for lawsuits....

ETA: for example. Disparate Treatment

The future of disparate impact discrimination.  In Ricci v Destafano white and Hispanic firefighters from New Haven, Conn sued the City for disparate treatment discrimination.  The city had administered objective tests for use in promotion of fire fighters to the ranks of Captain and Lieutenant in the department.  But, the City refused to certify the tests because no African-Americans passed the test.  The City claimed their action was the result of a fear of being sued for disparate impact discrimination by African-Americans.  The black applicants strengthened their case by showing statistical evidence that they were underrepresented in the officer ranks of the fire department. 

J Kennedy, writing for a 5-4 majority ruled against the City holding that fear of a lawsuit was not enough; they would have had to show they would have lost the suit in order to prevail.

[edit on 28-7-2010 by LadySkadi]

Originally posted by LadySkadi
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

Interesting.

This concept has already been challenged in the Supreme Court, and the challenges have been affirmed. In the private sector, that is. I suspect that if anyone can prove hiring practice discrimination based on this idea, it would be solid grounds for lawsuits....

yeah, that's pretty much the point of it.

lawsuits.

I'm sure this little tidbit was hand crafted by the trail lawyers union.

John Galt just rolled in his grave... again.

[edit on 7/28/2010 by this_is_who_we_are]

Consider:

“…the resolution of this dispute merely postpones the evil day on which the court will have to confront the question: whether, or to what extent, are disparate impact provisions…consistent with the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection.

*J. Scalia in reference to the Ricci case.

What J. Scalia means by the above remark is that the world has changed much since 1964 and that the ubiquitous discrimination practices of those years are gone; consequently, policies such as affirmative action and disparate impact must eventually fade and subordinate to the equal protection clause of the Constitution

Also:

CJ John Roberts wrote in a decision striking down an affirmative action program:
“If you want to end discrimination based on color, quit discriminating based on color."

*I would suspect gender to be no different.

So, I don't know where the future of this is going, but it APPEARS that some on the Supreme Court are trending toward ending Affirmative Action protections. As they should be... IMHO.

[edit on 28-7-2010 by LadySkadi]

updated OP to included the fact that it also blocks the SEC from having to answer freedom of information act requests.

Well its a fine time to be a 30 something straight white male isnt it? LOL

reply to post by LadySkadi


yeah it doesn't really matter what the supreme court does.

the point is to embroil firms in lawsuits so the trial lawyers can loot them.

no one has deeper pockets than wall street.

I can see the NY law firms salivating over this provision from my desk in CA.

The lawyers win either way.

reply to post by mnemeth1


Yep.

I should have been a lawyer.

I find it troubling that a private company (owned by people) can't be overtly racist. If someone wants to be a bigot, and wants to run their company like one, it should be their right.

Equality under the law means that laws cannot be used to try and counter the peaceful actions of individuals, no matter how insensitive and ignorant. To try and compel firms, in law, to be diverse is a massive trampling of freedom.

Besides, racial and gender diversity isn't really diversity. It gives the outward appearance of diversity, but does not necessarily mean it is diverse intellectually. We have forgotten the words of Martin Luther King, in that, we must judge people not on the color of their skin but on the content of their character.

Racism is terrible but using the tyranny of government guns to enforce a system of racial 'equality' is exponentially worse.

reply to post by DINSTAAR


In a humorous sort of way, the bill implicitly assumes women and minorities are incompetent.

If I was a women or minority, I would take offense at this bill since it basically says I'm incompetent and need government's help to get a job.

It also acts to further add profits to a racists bottom line.

If a firm hires based on race, rather than on ability, it will inevitably be put out of business through competition. Since hiring someone who is less than the best for the job puts a firm at a competitive disadvantage, any bill that attempts to level the playing field will only reduce the competition such a racist firm would face naturally.

So it actually supports racist businesses.

Attention White Males:

Go home and curl up and die.
Everything wrong is your fault and now you're gonna pay for it.

Gee, is the government trying to stir up the race issue I wonder?

What kind of racist am I if I only hate people that work for government?



[edit on 28-7-2010 by Asktheanimals]

reply to post by mnemeth1

Ha. Good point. But exactly what I was thinking about the wording...this sounds like it's part of the master agreement for anyone who does work for the government. Stuff like this has been there forever, and maybe they're just changing the wording.

I'd have to research a lot deeper than this to be able to make a proclamation like the sources in the OP did. Probably just another highly exaggerated story gone viral.

They're crying wolf far too often about things like this, particularly the racist angled stuff, for me to get too excited about this at the drop of a link.
reply to post by DINSTAAR

Again, it sounds like it might be for companies contracting with or working for the government, but that's just a guess.

In addition, companies are perfectly free to do exactly what you say. Only those who get certain funds from the government must comply to these kinds of standards. I'm rusty, but I'm pretty sure that's still the case. It may even be the case here.

[edit on 7/28/2010 by ~Lucidity]

I am sure someone will say that only companies that deal with the government will have to do this.

Oh wait, do I get a license to operate a business?

What was the last number? 70% of the GDP is in some way controlled by the government.

Nothing to see here.

I am sure there are more things buried in the 5000 pages of outright tyranny that has been passed by this admin.

Welcome to communism folks.

All your companies belong to us.

reply to post by endisnighe


yeah 40% of all GDP spending is from government.

of course, we have a free market and we are all capitalists here, which is why the economy is imploding